Bill Koitsis v. Ajax Automobile (2008) Inc. o/a Ajax Nissan, 2015 HRTO 1721

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Bill Koitsis Applicant

-and-

Ajax Automobile (2008) Inc. o/a Ajax Nissan Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Bill Koitsis Applicant

-and-

Midway Nissan Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: December 22, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1721 Indexed as: Koitsis v. Ajax Automobile (2008) Inc.

1These two Applications are being heard together pursuant to an Interim Decision dated June 16, 2015. (See Koitsis v. Ajax Nissan, 2015 HRTO 799.) Hearing dates were held on November 12 and 13, 2015, and another date is scheduled for February 9, 2016.

2Following the November hearing dates, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) addressing the applicant’s inquiry, raised at the end of the November 13 hearing date, about whether he would be able to call any witnesses in reply to evidence given by the respondents’ witnesses pertaining to his reputation. In the CAD, the Tribunal directed the applicant to identify any witnesses he intended to call in reply evidence, and provide a witness statement setting out their anticipated evidence by November 27, 2015. The Tribunal directed the respondents to file any objection to this anticipated evidence by December 7, 2015.

3On November 23, 2015, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal and the other parties in which he identified two additional witnesses that he intends to call, C.F. and H.Q. For the purposes of this Interim Decision, those individuals do not need to be identified and their initials will be used.

4The applicant states that C.F. will testify about the two of them meeting in relation to the applicant working for C.F.’s company, at the request of another person, M.B., and the applicant not hearing from the company again.

5The applicant states that another witness, H.Q., will testify that he heard that the applicant had sued one of the respondents and asked the applicant about this when they bumped into one another in June 2015.

6The respondent Midway Nissan does not take any position about the applicant calling these additional witnesses as their evidence has very limited relevance to it.

7The respondent Ajax Nissan objects to these two individuals being called as witnesses. It submits that both of the applicant’s proposed witnesses were identified in a May 26, 2015 email to the Tribunal before the hearing commenced, with the same anticipated evidence as now outlined, and that this email has been entered as an exhibit during the hearing. The respondent Ajax Nissan submits that the applicant represented during the hearing that he would not be calling any additional witnesses after he and his other witness testified, and that the applicant is attempting to split his case, which is a violation of the basic rules of evidence governing the conduct of civil cases. It requests that if the applicant is permitted to split his case that the respondent Ajax Nissan be permitted to fully respond.

analysis

8I decline to allow the applicant to call C.F. and H.Q. as witnesses in reply to the respondents’ witnesses.

9On November 12, 2015, the applicant started and ended his evidence. He then advised the Tribunal that he wanted to call his wife, Miralyse Koitsis, as a witness. Over the objections of the respondents, I orally ruled that Ms. Koitsis could be a witness and that the parties would have the opportunity during final submissions to address what weight, if any, should be given to her evidence. Ms. Koitsis then testified in examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by both respondents. The applicant presented no further witnesses and did not indicate that he wanted to call additional witnesses.

10Having reviewed the information contained in the applicant’s November 23, 2015 email, setting out the anticipated evidence of C.F. and H.Q., I find that it is not responsive to respondents’ evidence about the applicant’s reputation. Evidence in response to the respondents’ evidence pertaining to the applicant’s reputation could be permissible rebuttal evidence. Instead, I find that the anticipated evidence would address the applicant’s allegations raised in his Applications. Permitting this evidence, at this stage, would permit the applicant to split his case, which I am not prepared to do. See R. v. Graziano, 2015 ONCA 491 at para. 37.

11The applicant’s request to call C.F. and H.Q. is denied.

12The hearing will continue on the scheduled February 9, 2016 hearing date.